Neurorights
From emotional surveillance to cognitive sovereignty
2026: The Seeds of Things to come
Recent reporting on “emotional surveillance” points to a problem that is no longer speculative: AI systems are increasingly marketed as tools for reading affect, attention, anxiety, engagement, or intent from faces, voices, behavior, and other signals. In the European Union, the AI Act already prohibits certain emotion-recognition systems in workplaces and educational settings, reflecting concern about power imbalance and biometric inference. In the United States, the regulatory landscape remains more fragmented. Neurorights push this concern further. If emotional surveillance asks whether institutions should be allowed to infer how we feel, neurorights ask what protections are needed when technologies can access, alter, predict, or monetize the workings of the mind itself.
In The Knowledge Cartographer, this becomes one of the central ethical tensions of 2065: whether mental privacy, cognitive liberty, and psychological continuity can survive in societies built around neural data, AI-mediated cognition, and cognitive augmentation.
Miss Em’s Glossary Entry (circa 2065)
Neurorights: (n.) A proposed framework of rights protecting the privacy, autonomy, and integrity of the human mind in the era of neurotechnology. Core elements include:
Mental privacy: protection against unauthorized access to neural data or inferred mental states.
Mental integrity: protection against unwanted cognitive, emotional, or identity alteration.
Cognitive liberty: the right to use, refuse, or limit technologies that affect one’s mind.
Psychological continuity: protection of identity, memory, and selfhood over time.
Equity of access: prevention of a neuro-enhanced elite and a cognitive underclass.
Freedom from covert manipulation: protection against systems that shape preferences, emotions, or decisions invisibly.
Miss Em’s Glossary Annotations
Neurorights are necessary but incomplete. Law can protect the mind from intrusion, but it cannot by itself cultivate discernment, cognitive resilience, or self-knowledge.
In the Planetarian Zone, neurorights are treated as public infrastructure, embedded in design standards, audits, and collective governance. In the Nationalist Zone, neurorights are fragmented, contractual, and often subordinated to productivity, security, or market advantage. Both zones use the language of freedom, but they define mental freedom differently. Of course, cartographers occupy a legal gray zone because their work depends on cognitive augmentation. Early-career waivers and professional obligations complicate consent. Their cognitive data may be treated as personal, institutional, cultural, or strategic. I refused the Cartographers’ cognitive implants as a practical form of cognitive sovereignty rather than mere technological avoidance. I love technology, but not at the risk of damaging my own cognitive capabilities.
Worldbuilding and Reflection
Late in the novel revision process, I added an unresolved question that now frames the entire narrative: what happens to mental data after death?
Who owns a mind once its patterns can be mapped, copied, queried, or preserved?
Are neurorights enough if the most powerful intrusions happen through inference rather than direct access?
What does consent mean when the future uses of cognitive data cannot be fully known?
Related posts in this Substack:
Related posts in the “People Care Insights” Substack:
For readers who want to explore the contemporary basis for this glossary entry, I would start with four sources:
1. Nita Farahany, The Battle for Your Brain. https://www.nitafarahany.com/the-battle-for-your-brain.
Best single accessible book on cognitive liberty, mental privacy, workplace monitoring, and the legal implications of emerging neurotechnology.
2. UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-ethics-neurotechnology
Useful for the global governance angle. UNESCO explicitly links neurotechnology with risks to autonomy, agency, mental privacy, personal identity, surveillance, and manipulation. (UNESCO)
3. EU AI Act, Article 5: Prohibited AI Practices. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/5/
Relevant to the “emotional surveillance” hook because it prohibits certain AI systems that infer emotions in workplace and educational settings, with exceptions. (Artificial Intelligence Act)
4. OECD Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/api/print?ids=658&Lang=en
Helpful for thinking about governance before harm occurs. The OECD frames responsible neurotechnology as an upstream innovation problem, not only a downstream enforcement problem. (legalinstruments.oecd.org)